...Look. I know that men having no say about the lives or deaths of their unborn offsprings is a perfectly logical consequence of the woman's right of body autonomy which I agree on. However, the consequence of this is that women have a say about the lives or deaths of their unborn offsprings and men don't.

Wouldn't you call that an advantage of sorts? A benefit? ...A privilege?

Yeah, well, I (and however many other people) need to take antidepressants to achieve a state of emotional stability that most other people take for granted. I need to pay money (for medication) in order to feel as good as most people get to feel for free. I have no control over that. Is that unfair? Sure. But what the heck am I supposed to do about it?

I already did in my previous post, but to re-iterate a couple of points.
A "Nice Guy (TM)" is nice to women because he wants sex; a good person is simply nice.
A "Nice Guy (TM)" thinks his kindness should be repaid in some way; a good person is simply nice.
A "Nice Guy (TM)" will complain about being put in the "friendzone"; a good person will accept that a women is not interested in him romantically.

A counterquestion, what exactly do you mean with "a men that uses niceness as a form of courtship"? Because to me niceness should be a default and not something saved for special occasions.

I was asking Tahpenes actually, so I'll wait for that answer if you don't mind.

To answer the counterquestion, which, fair enough, is a good one, I consider being nice as a form of courtship as, in contrast to trying to impress a woman superficially or with cheap compliments, attempting to get her to know you better and letting your niceness speak for you. In that way, by becoming friends before a romantic couple, you also get the chance to know her better and decide if such courtship is viable or beneficial to your interests.

Also again what's with the trademark?

EDIT: Oh, I forgot, on the other topic... Well, I admit that my search has been a bit superficial... but I didn't see what's wrong in my definition. White privilege as I researched it means "Set of privileges that white people have over people with other skin colors."

And to get beck to the topic of abortion as a privilege, if we take privilege as advantage... Yeah not changing my mind here. There's a biological privilege going on. Not social, biological, but it's there. Stripey I believe that we agree on quite a lot more than you think, btw.

On the subject of women not being forced to enlist... I'm sorry stripey but I think bitflipper is right. Being forced to enlist is not a privilege. It's stripping a person's freedom away. Does it reinforce an unfair stereotype? It does. But it's still a privilege.

You know what's also a privilege? I don't listen from one of my ears. This is hardly crippling because my other ear has a way higher reception than normal, but either way, that little piece of trivia gives me a higher priority for people that hire. I'm disadvantaged and privileged for that._________________Welcome to Sinfest, the only place with a 46 pages long thread about sentient toasters

Last edited by Leohan on Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:40 pm; edited 4 times in total

It is an injustice, but it isn't female privilege. Also, while being shot at isn't a privilege, the assumption that men are strong and capable while women are not is. My point was the reasons given for drafting men and not women benefit men far more - the drafting itself is another matter.

Precisely; the draft is a separate matter from the assumptions given to justify it. There are two injustices at work, which require two solutions, if one pursues equality.

stripeypants wrote:

And what do you mean, wanting my cake and eating it too? When did I say women shouldn't be drafted?

You didn't. However, your statement:

stripeypants wrote:

If women are thought of as weak, and men are thought of as strong, is a law requiring all men to sign up for the draft female privilege? No. Despite the fact that this specific instance is a negative for men, the notion of being strong - and all the other sexist ideas about men - confer a benefit in our society.

reads to me as if you are condoning the law requiring only men to register for the draft as it offsets the injustice of sexist ideas about men prolific in society giving men advantages.

When you follow that with the statement:

stripeypants wrote:

Further, if women are denied the right to serve in combat roles, does this confer a privilege onto them? No, because it prevents them from exploring careers they would like to pursue, and also prevents women who are already doing work in combat zones to be denied pay and advancements they would otherwise receive. Additionally, it reinforces the idea that women fit the stereotype.

it reads as if you are demanding equal opportunities in the military for qualified candidates regardless of gender--a notion I fully support--but also condoning a gender-biased law for the draft at the same time.

If you wish to make it clear that you believe both genders should be subject to the draft, or, alternatively, that you believe the draft to be a violation of civil liberties for all affected and that it should be done away with, then I will happily retract the cake statement and apologize for misreading you.

Saying something isn't female privilege doesn't mean I think it is right, or that the reasons for it are not also rooted in the same sexism. One disadvantage does not negate the cumulative advantages privilege confers - and the idea men are stronger and more capable confer a whole lot of advantages.

bitflipper wrote:

stripeypants wrote:

As for the physical qualifications - why does anyone think that the military will not require the same of women who will enter combat as of men? That's nonsense.

Because the U.S. military has a record of not doing so in the past, and, apparently, are still not doing so as recently as 2012 despite how much noise the military has made about ensuring truly equal opportunities within its ranks. (And you're really not supposed to get me to do your research for you if you're arguing a position counter to my own. )

If you feel like digging up links, great. Good for you. My second contention is that if a military job has certain unavoidable qualifications, then anyone who applies for it should have to display those qualifications. I don't see why people don't tend to first complain that women should be tested equally instead of complaining that women can't do 'x.'

bitflipper wrote:

stripeypants wrote:

I also think that disabled people should be able to serve, incidentally. There are a lot of different jobs in the military. Many of them are not combat jobs, and never will involve a person in fighting. There is no reason, for example, that a file clerk in Alabama needs to be able to hear or to get around without a wheelchair.

Back when I tried to enlist (more than twenty-five years ago; things may have changed a little, since then), there was a process for doing so. It involved writing a letter to ones Senator or Representative, asking to be allowed to serve and explaining why an exception to the military's usual physical fitness rules should be made in ones own case. If ones Congressperson agreed, then one would receive a letter to take to the enlisting station, granting one exemption from certain physical duties and allowing one to enlist despite a 4F rating.

Never heard of anything like that. I am fairly sure that isn't an option now, based on the people I've known who were denied the chance to join based on physical factors.

bitflipper wrote:

stripeypants wrote:

Anyway, you say that we should work on correcting the stereotype. That's great. Did you know people are already doing that, and have been for some time?

Nope; I've been living under a rock since 1967. It's a very nice rock; it's got a vein of quartz running through it, and some sparkly bits, too.

stripeypants wrote:

I will also point out it is much, much harder to destroy a stereotype when people only see representations of that stereotype.

If you want easy, hop on the global warming bandwagon. If you want to make a difference, however,...

If you are aware, why say feminists have to destroy stereotypes before having laws enacted to bar discrimination? People are actively working on it and have been for a long time. They'll continue to work on it afterwards.

As for things being easy, what does evaluating what is possible and going for what appears to be easiest to accomplish and therefore effective have to do with your example? If I want easy, then go with the flow? Please explain further.

stripeypants wrote:

bitflipper wrote:

This also leaves open the issue of laws specifically enacted based on childbearing--the hypothetical paid maternal for women only, for example. What injustice is being redressed, here? That women become pregnant? Is this truly an injustice? If so, then how shall we address the injustice that men cannot become pregnant? What human law will serve to curtail this biological one?

It redresses the injustice of pregnant women being fired.

Unpaid time off that does not count against attendance suffices to address that issue. If interrupted income is an issue (and it most often is), then I advise people to purchase Short Term and Long Term Disability insurance well in advance of needing it.

stripeypants wrote:

Saying women taking maternity leave gives them privilege is like saying someone suffering from a long term illness and not working has privilege over the non-ill.

I was unaware that pregnancy was an illness; I had been taught it was the normal course of reproduction for all placental mammals. And paying someone for undertaking a normal biological activity that inconveniences the company and brings no advantage to the company--paying that person because she is female and pregnant--is indeed privilege.

[/quote]
I didn't say it was, hence, 'it is lie saying.' Though if I remember right, pregnancy is listed as an illness for insurance purposes.

bitflipper wrote:

stripeypants wrote:

The dichotomy is artificial. Gender exists, but it is not just male/female. Also, your argument reminds me of the one where if we cease to eat cows, suddenly they'll become too numerous and what then?

Cows and cake; your turn to explain.

No. I get paid money to explain things like the gender dichotomy, gender spectrum, etc. Read up on it.

stripeypants wrote:

You are literally saying that gender inequality exists because it's us versus them, right? Might as well be men on top!

...And, where am I saying that? Those certainly don't look like my words, yet you claim they are literally what I have said. So you'll be able to find and quote where I've said that, right?
[/quote]

Here:

bitflipper wrote:

Granted, millennia of male-dominant thinking has indeed established structures in society, in law, and in personal habits that promote iniquity, and those need to change. But, no matter how much the playing field gets equalized, there will still remain the central dichotomy between men and women about which privilege will congregate. It will either be male privilege, or female privilege (or, most realistically, a mix of both) because true equality is not possible when it comes to the functions of reproduction. My advice is: admit privileges exist and are not the sole demesne of any one demographic, then martial your arguments and begin trying to convince those from whom you are asking these privileges that said privileges serve everybody's interests the best in light of that fundamental and insurmountable difference between men and women. Then grab every privilege you can and wait for the courts to settle the dust, afterwards.

It does not read as badly to me as it did last night, but the belief that rights are a zero sum game and that privilege is a war of attrition is one of the reasons sexism exists.

Last edited by stripeypants on Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

I get that, but I disagree that it is privilege. It is a result of her buying into sexist ideas, it is stupid, and what she says isn't true. But I don't buy that as an example of female privilege. Privilege comes from power, and being viewed as a natural child nurterer is not a source of power.

I see that the semantic back and forth has been going on for a while so I wanted to jump in and say the issue is a two-way — "privilege" is loose enough to apply for pretty much everything that it is being used here for.

the issue arises when someone is used to a constrained definition of privilege such as one that matches how people use "white privilege" or "male privilege," detailing essentially what are discriminatory -ist advantages conferred on people for majority factors.

according to that constrained definition something like maternity leave isn't a privilege, or female privilege especially. but just using the word privilege to mean what it straight-up means, dictionary definition and all, that is indeed a privilege.

What it is not is a representative of part of a net privilege, which women don't have.

...On the other hand, though, Sam probably described it better than my loose research. If we take privilege as a consequence of discrimination then certainly it'd be hard to find true female privilege... Will have to think about it when I have time.

...Look. I know that men having no say about the lives or deaths of their unborn offsprings is a perfectly logical consequence of the woman's right of body autonomy which I agree on. However, the consequence of this is that women have a say about the lives or deaths of their unborn offsprings and men don't.

Wouldn't you call that an advantage of sorts? A benefit? ...A privilege?

Yeah, well, I (and however many other people) need to take antidepressants to achieve a state of emotional stability that most other people take for granted. I need to pay money (for medication) in order to feel as good as most people get to feel for free. I have no control over that. Is that unfair? Sure. But what the heck am I supposed to do about it?

It's an inevitability of biology. Life's not fair.

Hardly a perfect analogy, I know, but there it is.

It might be a flip of the coin and bad luck to be born with depression, but privilege comes into play when social structures are built in such a way that any attribute leads to the person having it being underprivileged. For instance, it is unfortunate individual peope have depression. It is due to stigma that depressed people are viewed as weak or as lazy people faking it. This stigma can lead to other problems, such as lower unemployment - because if an employer believes the stigma, they won't choose to hire a lazy worker. People who think medication doesn't work or those who think depression doesn't exist can work to make obtaining the meds more difficult - for instance, not allowing mental healthcare to be included in what is free or reduced price to low income people.

...On the other hand, though, Sam probably described it better than my loose research. If we take privilege as a consequence of discrimination then certainly it'd be hard to find true female privilege... Will have to think about it when I have time.

Also Sam nice to see you writing posts without any hint of sarcasm. You should do that more often. ^^

It does not read as badly to me as it did last night, but the belief that rights are a zero sum game and that privilege is a war of attrition is one of the reasons sexism exists.

Then I am left in a position where you get to call me a sexist for treating women exactly as if they were men, or you get to call me sexist if I try to make allowances for the differences between male and female biology. Well argued; you get to call me sexist regardless of whatever the actual facts may be. Yet another reason I reject labels: not only are they deceptive but, quite often, in their actual application, they become meaningless.

Define privilege in your own way, then. From what I can see, it means the same thing as "sexist," to whit: whatever the hell promotes your agenda without actually establishing a verifiable distinction you may have to work around.

For me, I'll continue to use the dictionary definition: "A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste." Meaning you've already lost the argument as soon as you assert that only the traditional majority can enjoy privilege and that, for anyone else, any concession they may see is just a twisted reflection of the traditional majority's privilege. It's just "sexist," all over, again._________________I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning

For me, I'll continue to use the dictionary definition: "A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste." Meaning you've already lost the argument as soon as you assert that only the traditional majority can enjoy privilege and that, for anyone else, any concession they may see is just a twisted reflection of the traditional majority's privilege. It's just "sexist," all over, again.

See to the point of this debate, the problem is with the words meaning advantage TOWARDS women. In this way, how can having the right to their own body be a privilege, as it should be natural to have your own right to yourself?

In the relationship, the man can be at a DIS-advantage, but one disadvantage does not necessarily denote the other has an advantage. That's where semantics have become the argument here. Being disabled doesn't mean everyone else is actually advantaged. In that way, we only create tiers of privileged or not privilege that just further breaks into everyone arguing on their definition of the words.

And that's just it. There's no true way to argue this, as semantics NEVER end well. Words have implied meaning to each individual. The dictionary definition of many things is not take into account how people have heard a word used in connotation to local culture and society.

In the concept of male privilege and female privilege, in many feminist debates, if feminists ever gave in and allowed somebody to say women have their own "privileges", by definition, then the opposition used it to say that "See, men and women are equal with their OWN privileges! These women just want to complain". When one side uses any leverage to undercut your whole message, that's when you have to get into semantics of why privilege means something more here.

In this case, feminism has used the WORD privilege to denote something more important that the word itself. They could have possibly used a different word, but the end result is a word (any word) that holds a special meaning when used in this context. The biggest problem I have with the opposition to that message trying to label the "privileges" on women is not about the dictionary definition. It's that they have chosen to use the EXTRA meaning implied in the Feminists' message and say because the dictionary equivalent of the word applies here, so does the extra meaning.

---------
Also, for once I wrote a huge block of text on the last page and no one complained about it. I must be getting better at making sure I concretely show my point. =P (Or it seemed irrelevant...but whatever. I'll take it.)_________________

And that's just it. There's no true way to argue this, as semantics NEVER end well. Words have implied meaning to each individual. The dictionary definition of many things is not take into account how people have heard a word used in connotation to local culture and society.

In the concept of male privilege and female privilege, in many feminist debates, if feminists ever gave in and allowed somebody to say women have their own "privileges", by definition, then the opposition used it to say that "See, men and women are equal with their OWN privileges! These women just want to complain". When one side uses any leverage to undercut your whole message, that's when you have to get into semantics of why privilege means something more here.

The final result of which, though, is that the message ends up meaning nothing at all. It becomes "sound and fury," because the opposition soon sees that the proponents will continue to shift definitions so that their connotation-laden words apply regardless of circumstances and even in the light of mutually exclusive possibilities. At that point, the argument becomes "You simply want words to cast us in an unpleasant light without ever having to face possible unpleasant truths, yourselves. That's not a message; it's name-calling. And we no longer have to listen to you at all, as a result."

The next step generally involves tomatoes.

The answer to "men and women are equal with their OWN privileges" is to point out the fallacy of "separate but equal." O-kay, so, perhaps there is such a thing as female privilege, or black privilege, or gay privilege. But it is vastly outweighed by male/white/straight privilege, and what privileges there are cannot be said to be equal with each other. So, bearing in mind that, at some point, we will have to come back and address female/black/gay privilege in order to achieve true equality, let's get our hammers and go bang on the mountain of male/white/straight privilege because it is such a larger target, anyway, and we can make more progress by attacking it than by worrying about smaller, offsetting compensations at this time.

See the difference? The first approach is divisive, can cost one needed allies, and automatically precludes the possibility that ones message will be heard by those who most need to hear it. The second approach unites people, invites allies, and actually has some chance of getting the message through._________________I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning

It does not read as badly to me as it did last night, but the belief that rights are a zero sum game and that privilege is a war of attrition is one of the reasons sexism exists.

Then I am left in a position where you get to call me a sexist for treating women exactly as if they were men, or you get to call me sexist if I try to make allowances for the differences between male and female biology. Well argued; you get to call me sexist regardless of whatever the actual facts may be. Yet another reason I reject labels: not only are they deceptive but, quite often, in their actual application, they become meaningless.

Define privilege in your own way, then. From what I can see, it means the same thing as "sexist," to whit: whatever the hell promotes your agenda without actually establishing a verifiable distinction you may have to work around.

For me, I'll continue to use the dictionary definition: "A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste." Meaning you've already lost the argument as soon as you assert that only the traditional majority can enjoy privilege and that, for anyone else, any concession they may see is just a twisted reflection of the traditional majority's privilege. It's just "sexist," all over, again.

I called you sexist when you began using gender essentialism for your argument. That's really it. I should have stated it better, I was being a bit of an ass last night and this morning, but that's why. Please note I did not call you sexist until that point. At any rate, since you didn't actually say that men have a need to subjugate women because otherwise women will overpower them, then I retract that. (And I thought I had done so this morning, but probably not.) I disagree with gender essentialism, but since I don't feel like arguing about what the gender dichotomy is and why I think it's wrong, I'm not going to press that point.

The dictionary definition is not what privilege means in this context, hence following that definition for this discussion doesn't work. Privilege in this case is like one of those technical words that stands for something else in the general language, but in this context it refers to something more specific. You can see what Adyon wrote about that.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot, on the other topic... Well, I admit that my search has been a bit superficial... but I didn't see what's wrong in my definition. White privilege as I researched it means "Set of privileges that white people have over people with other skin colors."

That sounds a bit right. I don't know if this example is suitable, but perhaps think about the Samurai back before Japan was modernized. I'm forgetting any info I ever had about what the different eras were called. Anyway, the Samurai had privilege over other classes, but they also had to follow certain rules or be punished. There was a rule against them working. This was all well and good until a samurai became broke - and then he couldn't work to earn a living. That rule hurts the individual samurai who became broke, but he still has privilege over everyone else.

Leohan wrote:

And to get beck to the topic of abortion as a privilege, if we take privilege as advantage... Yeah not changing my mind here. There's a biological privilege going on. Not social, biological, but it's there. Stripey I believe that we agree on quite a lot more than you think, btw.

Well, I'm taking privilege as has already been explained elsewhere, and as you described above with white privilege. Discussions on sexism won't make any sense if you use a different definition. A person who chooses to have an abortion can not have privilege because of the abortion - because women do not have privilege. The group which has more power continues to have more power, even when an individual circumstance does not work in the powerful group's favor. To liken it to a class based society, even if you lose your money and bad things happen to you when you are a higher class person, as long as you are higher class you still have more protection and rights under the law. Therefore, you still have your privilege.

Leohan wrote:

On the subject of women not being forced to enlist... I'm sorry stripey but I think bitflipper is right. Being forced to enlist is not a privilege. It's stripping a person's freedom away. Does it reinforce an unfair stereotype? It does. But it's still a privilege.

It is a side effect of privilege. It comes from privilege. It doesn't negate privilege. I don't believe I ever said the draft was a privilege, but I do believe I said that it's source is that which gives rise to privilege. If I didn't make that clear, it is what I'm trying to say.

Leohan wrote:

You know what's also a privilege? I don't listen from one of my ears. This is hardly crippling because my other ear has a way higher reception than normal, but either way, that little piece of trivia gives me a higher priority for people that hire. I'm disadvantaged and privileged for that.

I'm confused. Are you saying that you are privileged when people are specifically looking to higher those who can only hear in one ear?

Apology accepted, Stripey, and, for myself, please let me apologize for the rather snitty tone I took in response; it was not appropriate to a mature debate.

I haven't much else I can add, at the moment. Leohan seems willing to accept your particular definition of privilege in this context, which is fine by me (probably going to confuse the hell out of me each time I see it, for a bit, until I get used to the context, but, meh, I'll live.)

I'll be sure to jump in the next time the waters need muddying. _________________I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning

The answer to "men and women are equal with their OWN privileges" is to point out the fallacy of "separate but equal." O-kay, so, perhaps there is such a thing as female privilege, or black privilege, or gay privilege. But it is vastly outweighed by male/white/straight privilege, and what privileges there are cannot be said to be equal with each other. So, bearing in mind that, at some point, we will have to come back and address female/black/gay privilege in order to achieve true equality, let's get our hammers and go bang on the mountain of male/white/straight privilege because it is such a larger target, anyway, and we can make more progress by attacking it than by worrying about smaller, offsetting compensations at this time.

Yes, it's true and is SO much better than the normal approach of opponents that say "Do nothing" because everyone has privileges. And so often I see that. People say that privilege is inevitable and so we should never try to change it.

If I were to disagree anywhere it would be:

bitflipper wrote:

The final result of which, though, is that the message ends up meaning nothing at all. It becomes "sound and fury," because the opposition soon sees that the proponents will continue to shift definitions so that their connotation-laden words apply regardless of circumstances and even in the light of mutually exclusive possibilities.

Because the word does have one set meaning to Feminists. They don't change it. People just don't want to accept it. People DO modify the meaning of words all the time. My personal friends and groups used to come up with meaning for words based on an event that happened. As I said in my in my last paragraph, the problem is most of the time the opposition uses an arguing technique that because the dictionary definition fits, so does the implied meaning that it truly contextual to the group.

Though honestly, for that reason, I too am against against using such coined words like "male privilege" and "rape culture" so freely, not because their meaning isn't clear to those who understand it, but because a simple old time arguing method is to take another meaning of a word, find that it applies or doesn't and declare the newer concept void. Or simply dismiss the whole concept. Of course, this concept of arguing is easily discredited, but often the majority of the crowd in a debate isn't intelligent enough to understand WHY it's discredited...And we do take into consideration most of the population isn't the brightest. And as you said it really can

Quote:

cost one needed allies, and automatically precludes the possibility that ones message will be heard by those who most need to hear it.

But in this case we've been talking, privilege is a concept. I still defend it being used that way, because I believe people have the right to personal vocabulary. You just have a meaning in context to where it's used. But I do think sometimes it's harder to get someone new to understand your definition.

The reason I DO like it, is it is more "specific" in a way where another word doesn't exist to do so, as said by Stripey

stripeypants wrote:

The dictionary definition is not what privilege means in this context, hence following that definition for this discussion doesn't work. Privilege in this case is like one of those technical words that stands for something else in the general language, but in this context it refers to something more specific. You can see what Adyon wrote about that.

Stripey: Nope, I'm saying I'm privileged because companies like to hire people that are at presumed disadvantages (I don't wanna say disabled in this context) in order to get government benefits.

And... Really I don't understand you. The samurai example is way better than anything I could come up with, but you use it to explain how that's NOT a situation of privilege by force of not being a samurai. Samurai effectively lose the privilege of working that commoners have. Do they have an entirely different set of privileges that put them over commoners? Hell yeah. But commoners have the privilege to become a farmer if they wish to do so.